It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
relevance.

Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).

--
--Tim Smith

Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:37:13 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
> then there are 161000 hits.
>
> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
>
> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
> and it stays 46200 hits.
>
> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
> relevance.
>
> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).

Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

"Tim Smith" stated in postreply_in_group-2D1992.17371321072008@news.supernews.com on 7/21/08 5:37 PM:
>
> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
> then there are 161000 hits.
>
> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
>
> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
> and it stays 46200 hits.
>
> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
> relevance.
>
> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
>
It was *not* working for me for some time but seems to be now. Might be an
update that is propagating...

Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

"Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
zh1nl3cxugqa$.183sfw3lasms2$.dlg@40tude.net on 7/21/08 5:46 PM:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:37:13 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
>> then there are 161000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
>> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
>> and it stays 46200 hits.
>>
>> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
>> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
>> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
>> relevance.
>>
>> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
>> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
>> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
>> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
>
> Same results here...
>
>
Maybe Steve Carroll is taking down Google like he claimed to before:

Sigh....

--
Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
appeal to both sides.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

Snit writes:
> "Tim Smith" stated in post
> reply_in_group-2D1992.17371321072008@news.supernews.com on 7/21/08 5:37 PM:
>
>>
>> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
>> then there are 161000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
>> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
>> and it stays 46200 hits.
>>
>> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
>> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
>> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
>> relevance.
>>
>> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
>> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
>> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
>> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
>>
> It was *not* working for me for some time but seems to be now. Might be an
> update that is propagating...

The infamous "Google dance".

--
- "Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
some major $$$ to develop this thing. This is a great opportunity for
alternative operating systems to intercept the ball, and run it back for a
touchdown.": comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
> then there are 161000 hits.
>
> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
> relevance.
>
> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).

For you, I get the big difference you note. For "Mark Kent" and
"Linonut", it is the same either way.